Posted on 03/21/2006 4:26:09 PM PST by SandRat
FORT MEADE, Md. (Army News Service, March 21, 2006) -- A military police dog handler was found guilty today of charges related to maltreatment of detainees at the Abu Ghraib confinement facility in Iraq.
The verdict for Sgt. Michael Smith came after more than a week of court-martial proceedings at Fort Meade. The panel began hearing testimony today regarding sentencing.
Smith, a 24-year-old MP then with the 523rd Military Police Battalion, was accused of several violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice stemming from incidents involving his un-muzzled military working dog at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 and early 2004.
He was found guilty of two out of five counts of prisoner maltreatment, one count of simple assault out of the four counts of aggravated assault, one of the two counts of conspiracy to maltreat, one count of dereliction of duty and a final charge of an indecent act.
10th Soldier on trial
Nine Soldiers have already been court-martialed for maltreatment and abuse of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib facility from the same time period. The trial of a second Army dog handler, Sgt. Santos Cardona, who is also accused of the maltreatment of detainees, is scheduled to begin in May.
Smith’s trial began March 13 with the prosecution portraying the dog-handler as a “rogue” Soldier who took pleasure in tormenting detainees with his military working dog, allegedly forcing the detainees to do “the doggie dance” as they squirmed in terror. Smith's defense counsel, Capt. Mary McCarthy, countered that Smith was simply a Soldier following orders and using his military working dog — a black Belgian shepherd named Marco — as instructed to maintain order within the prison of high profile detainees.
Dogs helped maintain order
The military working dogs at Abu Ghraib were employed as force multipliers serving in several different roles. Five teams of military working dog handlers, two Army and three Navy, were used to patrol and maintain order within areas of the facility, to guard entrances and to respond to disturbances.
Smith used his un-muzzled military working dog to frighten the detainees, an act his defense says he was instructed to do. The prosecution maintained that Smith kept his dog un-muzzled because he enjoyed terrorizing the detainees.
Twenty-four witnesses testified over the course of the trial. Prosecution witness Army Sgt. John Ketzer, an interrogator at Abu Ghraib in 2003 and 2004, testified that he saw two juvenile boys cowering in a cell as Smith's military working dog barked and strained against its leash at them. Ketzer testified that Smith told him later that he and his buddy were having a contest to see if they could get the detainees to defecate on themselves, because they already caused them to urinate on themselves. Under cross-examination, Ketzer admitted he thought Smith was joking about the contest.
Another prosecution witness, Navy Chief Petty Officer William Kimbro, a dog handler at Abu Ghraib, testified that he also faced similar situations in regard to prisoner interrogation as Smith. When Kimbro's military working dog was used in an interrogation, he quickly left because he felt “it was wrong to use your dog in a way that the dog is not trained to do.” Following Kimbro's testimony on March 15, the prosecution rested their case.
Colonel admits regret
The defense called Army Col. Thomas Pappas, commander of military intelligence personnel at Abu Ghraib during the time Smith was assigned to the facility. Pappas, who was given immunity to testify, testified that he gave permission to use military working dogs one time on one detainee, something that he did not have the authority to do. He also stated that he did not verify that the military working dog handlers had the proper training to participate in interrogations and did not check to see how the interrogation was conducted with the dogs.
Pappas said he regretted not putting proper control measures in place with regards to the use of the military working dogs in interrogations. Although the testimony did explain why dogs were being used in interrogations, it did not provide a reason why the dogs were un-muzzled. Pappas said that he authorized the dogs to be muzzled when they were in the interrogation booth. Defense counsel maintained that the guidance was not clearly defined, and Smith thought he was carrying out the orders correctly.
Pappas previously received an Article 15 and was fined $8,000. In addition, he was also relieved from command.
Dog as weapon?
Another defense witness, Army Maj. David DiNenna, who directly oversaw security at Abu Ghraib, testified on March 16 that military police were continually told to use the minimum amount of force necessary to maintain control of the detainees and to always treat them with dignity and respect. However, DiNenna also testified that the military working dogs were there to help keep order at Abu Ghraib. DiNenna felt that there was nothing inhumane about having the dogs bark at detainees during patrols. He also felt that if a muzzled dog was brought to an uprising, it would “have no effect on the situation.” On cross-examination, DiNenna admitted Smith’s use of the dogs as charged was not authorized.
During closing arguments on March 17, both the defense and prosecution reiterated their cases to the seven-member panel of Army senior noncommissioned and commissioned officers. Prosecution counsel Army Maj. Christopher Graveline said that Smith treated his military working dog, “his weapon or partner, as a toy.” According to the prosecution, the charge of an indecent act showcased this notion well. Smith is charged with using his military working dog to lick peanut butter off the genitals and breasts of two fellow Soldiers. Prosecution maintains that this act shows Smith's ill regard to the correct operation of the military working dogs.
Defense: Only following orders
In her closing arguments, defense counselor McCarthy asked panel members to consider if Smith and fellow dog handler Cardona felt their actions were wrong, why did they not attempt to hide the incidents. Cardona's dog bit a detainee twice and in each case the incident was properly reported and all of the proper forms were filled out. McCarthy continued that there were no attempts to cover up the incident, as the Soldiers believed they were following orders.
“Sgt. Smith is on trial for his life, for things he thought he was supposed to do,” said McCarthy.
(Editor’s note: Trish Hoffman writes for the Fort Meade Public Affairs Office.)
PING
Handling dogs SHOULD be a crime. What a sicko!
Hey, at least he wasn't manhandling the prisoners!
LOL...seriesly tho, this world is upside down, bizarro-world if you will...we're the good guys aren't we? OUR guy let's his doggie bark at the bad guy...no biting please, and HE is going to jail?
Remind me how many years in prison those terrorist-kidnappers got for all those beheadings? Please?
That's the difference between a nation of laws and freedom...we do the right thing even if it hurts us.
THEY are a bunch of low life murdering pigs...and THEY will get theirs, courtesy of the USA!!!
How is having the dog lick peanut butter following orders???
That is beyond gross :(
It would hurt us more to not prosecute this offense.
But I don't think the sentence matches the crime: 6 months sounds better.
6 weeks of KP is more like it!
Pappas, who was given immunity to testify
He's cutting his troops loose. Frickin' a-hole. Officers are going to come out of this with a pension and his troops are going to get booted out after going to prison.
The whole system is politicized now.... I'm not naive and think that enlisted men will be treated equally as officers, but this is a total bail out.
This is the same ambiguous cr@p that is now being put in place for future interogations... the rule is you can do so much as not to "permanently injure" somebody... Well, what's that mean???....well we'll let a court martial figure that out boys. don't worry, just get the info.
Bunch of CYA, bs. 8 years of Clinton-a$$ kissing officers and other career minded officers trying to make hay out of this war really p@ss me off.
How about starving a dog for 10 days, cutting up a prisoner till he's bleeding and throwing him in a cage for another 3 days while the other prisoners watch.... then ask for some info. As far as the quality of the info... don't care, every "insurgent" that gets caught with a remote control or video camera after an IED attack, gets the same treatment.
Of course that's not what I've done, or even heard about...but I could see it happening.
Spare me the "you never get good info with torture" line... you might not get it the "first" time... but as long as everybody sees what happens with bad info...every time after that you'll get good info...or so I've heard.
Gross is right. ACK!
I agree about the ambiguity from on high, when it comes to allowable "techniques". Does this mean that anything goes, save deliberate murder?
Spare me the "you never get good info with torture" line... you might not get it the "first" time... but as long as everybody sees what happens with bad info...every time after that you'll get good info...or so I've heard.
You might get good info sometimes, but how would you know? We often don't have very good translators, and sometimes get led on wild goose chases, roundups of innocents, and intra-clan vendettas.
Torture has downsides, especially when used on the innocent. It recruits enemies, and discourages desirable intelligence recruits.
In this case, they may have nailed the dog handler for simple sadism, unrelated to information gathering.
I think you skim read the article.
Ridiculous. Sending a soldier to prison for "scaring" terrorists.
GOOD!
BTTT
Oh, I thought it was of abusing the dog.
No, they just have to put corks in their guns.
I would assume that the fellow soldiers were female, and it was a sexual thing. In San Francisco this is called foreplay, at Abu Graib it is proof of eeeeeeeeeevil intent. I cannot believe that we will put soldiers in jail for having a dog bark inches from the face of a prisoner. We are doomed as a nation, not one ounce of testosterone left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.